Blog

At Tesla we're proud of our Roadster. "Fergus247" put it best in his comment about our recent video, "Imagine if all car companies loved their products this much. Hell, imagine if everyone producing some kind of product﻿ loves it like Tesla loves theirs." It's true. I look forward to driving one of our cars every chance I get, and get a thrill every time I'm behind the wheel. I think everyone who can should be driving a Roadster. It's a feeling all of us share at Tesla. So you could say we're biased. That's where car critics come in.

We have one media car, a fully loaded Very Orange Roadster Sport. Nothing but the best for the journalists we entrust to drive and evaluate our product. Often, they appreciate and report on the things that make people love this car. Sometimes they don't. That's fine. We don't expect blindly glowing reviews, but we expect journalists to do their research and write honestly. We believe potential buyers should have honest assessments from credible, third-party sources.

Car and Driver is one such source. It has earned its reputation as one of the most trusted and respected car journals in the world -- a place where self-declared "car guys" can "tell it like it is." It's a place where I go to find the unvarnished truth about many cars. Tesla has a good history with Car and Driver. West Coast editor Aaron Robinson has spent more time living with the Roadster than almost any journalist. But folks in the Ann Arbor headquarters had not been so lucky. So in December 2009, we reached out to Car and Driver headquarters and offered to let them borrow the Roadster for a week.

Unfortunately, the resulting post by K.C. Colwell is so inaccurate, I felt obligated to present our side of the story. The editor offered to review a list of our complaints, but I believe the very core of the post is so biased that a direct rebuttal from us is necessary.

Before handing the keys over to Colwell for the week, we gave him a one-hour overview of the car. He told us he planned to use the car as a daily driver. We figured a piece about how the Roadster handles daily driving in the middle of the Michigan winter would be a great testament to the durability of the car. We explained many aspects of Roadster ownership, paying particular attention to the points most relevant for daily commuters. We briefly discussed topics like maximizing the driving range by charging and driving the car in "range" mode. However, he explicitly told us he did not plan to take the car on any road trips. Like we do for our owners, we also gave Colwell the name and contact information for a Tesla customer service manager reachable day or night to answer any questions.

We didn't hear from Colwell again until about two weeks after he returned the car. He sent an email saying that he had encountered a "unique" set of circumstances during a road trip he chose to take. We responded asking for more info, and instead found the screed he published the next day. In his post in Car and Driver's blog, "Tesla’s 244-mile Range: What Up With Dat?" Colwell takes us to task for supposedly claiming 244 miles on a single charge. He claims that he departed on his road trip with a full charge and drove conservatively, around 60 mph, and yet he got stranded on his way back. He also advises us to add cruise control to future models.

At Tesla Motors, the emails were flying. His post surprised and worried many of us. The car routinely gets 200 miles per charge and does not experience much if any decrease in range in the winter. So we consulted the trip information our car stores in its firmware. We found that Colwell departed for his trip from Ann Arbor to Saginaw with only 85 percent state of charge. He had charged in "standard" mode, not "range" mode, the preferred mode by customers who have long-distance hauls. Colwell averaged between 70 and 80 mph, and went north of 80 a few times, significantly more aggressive than his claimed 60 mph average. (Some in the office wondered if maybe his speed is what attracted the attention of the trooper he mentions in his piece.) Colwell also claimed to have driven conservatively, but the logs reveal that his energy usage ranged between 300 and 400 Watt-hours per mile (Wh/mi), not conservative by any measure.

Finally, cruise control is a standard feature. The controls are located on the stalk to the left of the steering wheel.

As far as our supposed stated claim on range: range testing for EVs is not yet an exact science, in fact the EPA has in the past (and likely will in the future) made changes to these testing parameters. The 244 miles per charge rating was based on testing parameters determined by the EPA, not Tesla, according to mixed city/highway cycle testing based on typical use patterns for drivers. The EPA test reflects 45 percent highway driving and 55 percent city. A well optioned 2010 Roadster with sticky tires has since been tested for a 236 mile per charge rating.

About a year ago, we explained that like in conventional gas-powered cars, efficiency declines with high speed driving and aggressive acceleration. Colwell set off with a partial charge, drove almost exclusively on the highway, frequently at speeds well over the legal limit, and with snow tires - another detail he omitted from his post. His average of 350 Wh/mi is much higher than the 240 Wh/mi observed during the EPA test. We are also still puzzling as to why Colwell didn't simply plug in the car when he got to his friend's house in Saginaw.

On the bright side, his story demonstrated that electric infrastructure is everywhere. Colwell found a plug at a 7-11 and thanks to the Roadster's on-board charger could have successfully charged there. He later found a plug at a Holiday Inn, without any advanced planning. We're still not sure why Colwell kept his plans from us or why he didn't call us when he ran into trouble. Having just completed our own 3,200-mile trip, we would have been happy to help him find 220 volt outlets on his journey.

Colwell concludes by criticizing the Roadster's price and contrasting it with traditional gas-powered automobiles. Our customers see it a different way. How do you price the feeling you get from driving the world’s only electric sports car, or the satisfaction you feel from contributing to the effort to build affordable EVs, or from belonging to a community of forward-looking pioneers? Those factors are a crucial part of our community's valuation of the Roadster. It’s a shame the author did the opposite of what he told us, reported dishonestly, and ignored the greatest features of the Roadster. At least I warned you that I'm biased.

Thank you Ricardo! I am so pleased to know that Tesla looks into these PR issues because this did hit the front page of google new, and I was one of the first few posters on the car and driver site. I know this article was completely wrong in every way possible. I even asked other posters who were Tesla Owners to maybe call Tesla on his behalf to clarify this. Im happy to see the posting worked. Its funny to see K.C. Colwell's articles and so many have zero posts, except the Tesla Test drive. :-D

p.s. I'm saving up to buy a Tesla R and S. I have no doubt the Tesla S will sell like crazy. The design is beautiful and the interior is superior to most cars I have seen. I hope to join the future soon!

AJA

4:53pm | Feb 5, 2010

Colwell clearly set out to do a hit piece from the start.

I bought my LAST Car and Driver issue before I read that joke of a blog.

Tom A.

5:11pm | Feb 5, 2010

Are you sure that guy wasn't on a Big Oil or Big 3 bank roll? Glad to see the firmware completely destroy that shameless buffoon's lies. In fact, Tesla should insist that this blog post be printed in Car and Driver. In any review magazine, manufacturers have the opportunity to comment on the published reviews of their products, and their comments are published in the same issue or in a subsequent issue.

It's tough enough for EVs to get accurate press to begin with, but this sort of slander is really doing a serious disservice, not just to Tesla, but to energy sustainability.

Timo

12:00am | Feb 6, 2010

This brings in my mind that Top Gear -episode where they tested Roadster. Similar lies at every corner. And yet they still managed to get it in their list in position where all surrounding gas-guzzlers were more expensive :-)

In fact if you try to find cars with 0-60 accleration is less than 4 seconds and look at their prices you notice that Roadster is a bargain. Roadster Sport with its 3.7 sec acceleration is almost on its own class with cars that cost closer to one million.

Which brings in my mind, could you add passing acceleration (50-80 mph) too in performance-page? AFAIK that is something that almost none of those gas-guzzlers can achieve (because of single gear), but I haven't really seen any numbers anywhere.

Enrique

9:40am | Feb 6, 2010

I am not interested to buy a new car unless it is electrical. I think my children when they grow up will drive electrical cars.
Thanks to Tesla Motors for creating a great electrical car and thanks for your effort to make them more affordable.

After all, I don't care about a report from K.C. Col...who?.
He is not able to read a user manual, he is not capable to find a cruise control, he doesn't have the common sense to plug in an electrical car for the return trip at nigth.
I understand why he is not able to recognize he had on his hands the steering wheel of a car that sparked the electrical vehicle revolution.

Electrical vehicles are the future, but the future in now.
I'm sure you will have an amazing response for your Initial Public Offer.

Best regards

Dave

4:35pm | Feb 6, 2010

That was a great rebuttal. I am a dedicated C&D reader and find that their reviews can be pretty harsh at times, but that is exactly why I follow them. They don't sugar-coat anything and don't look for praise by manufactures. This was one of the very few times that I have seen a company stand up for its product and provide explanations for the problems encountered. This was not a blind smear campaign against C&D, but nicely laid out facts that the writer omitted from his report, intentional or not. I don't view C&D any differently than before, but I hope they proof read and ask a few questions before an author just starts throwing stories up on a very reliable automotive website hosted by the leader of automotive news.
Good Job Tesla.

Jim

8:17pm | Feb 6, 2010

Hoping to save up for a Model S. Was surprised when I read the C&D article on my own a few days ago. The guy sounds like an idiot looking for trouble. Very disappointing that auto shows/mags apparently are not supportive of electric vehicles. I think they are worried about their future and that electrics may take the fun out of it for some reason.

Beats me, all I know is I'm buying a Model S as soon as I can, and that idiot can continue to stop at the gas station all he likes.

Timo

3:59am | Feb 7, 2010

Heh, I just got my answer for my question for 50-80 acceleration. Not in numbers but words. And between lines.

In main page there is link to "A-Z of the future: Roadster Sport", and there Roadster acceleration is described as "wholly alien", and that 20-70mph "have to be experienced to be believed". It also mentions that after 80mph "rush fades a little".

So, I'm guessing passing acceleration is "wholly alien". :-) I think I can live with that.

Tesler

8:34am | Feb 7, 2010

I think it's kind of crazy to treat the Tesla Roadster like a Honda Civic. Clearly the idea was to find a weak spot in the Roadster. The weak spot happen to be the driver in this case.

Sad really for such a well known mag to look so foolish after their "story" is found to have many holes in it.

I will agree you do need to plan your routes and adventures a little more wisely than hopping in your Civic (was going to use a toyota as an example but no one trusts them now ;)
Assuming you can afford a Tesla, it is implied you have enough brains to read the manual, understand it, and plan your awesome drives accordingly.

They imply that you misrepresented the firmware log. They do not address your points that Colwell ignored the manual, ignored your suggestions, didn't call your customer service guy and tested the car differently from how he said he would.

They don't have a logical leg to stand on, but from the comments it seems they have readers who do not read and think critically, but rather lap up C&D's rhetoric because it supports the readers' own biases.

Don't let your guard down, Tesla. You've passed the worst of the technical challenges and some of the business challenges. Now you must face the social challenges head-on. You've got logic and facts on our side, now you need ruthless tenacity and political savvy.

Charles

1:07pm | Feb 7, 2010

Speaking of being biased, I find it odd that all the posts on this page or so pro-Testa. While I understand you disagree with the information provided in the C&D blog, I'm not sure your rebuttal needed to be as snotty and high and mighty. I would have much enjoyed a more professional response from your company which contained less 'shots'. If I didn't find the C&D blog very professional, this posting makes you equals.

I won't be buying a Testa anytime soon ... but not because of either of these blogs.

Glad to see your customers are on your side. Not sure it means Car & Driver is suddenly a horrible, not honest, non credible source.

"till you remove this posting ... if it ever makes it up.

Charles A.

Rex Monty

1:24pm | Feb 7, 2010

I'm still scratching my head about this: Why didn't the C&D editor simply plug the car in when he was parked in Saginaw? The car was just sitting there. He could have charged the car with far less hassle than it takes to pull off the road and make a detour to a dank, greasy gas station under any circumstances. My hunch is that our fearless driver was a bit overeager to stop at 7-11 late at night... ;)

Marian

8:22pm | Feb 7, 2010

I like this car but it is for rich spoiled persons. Really, let’s be realistic. Who will pay the price for such car? I really wish to have it but I could only afford a Toyota Camry Hybrid.

John D. Ayer

11:11am | Feb 8, 2010

I read the original blog and your response. Any reasonable gearhead knew the blogger knows nothing about cars in general. Cars typically get between 50% and 90% of the EPA mileage. The Car & Driver blogger got about 70%, just about exactly where I would expect it on average. We all know that mileage is an estimate and that some people will get better than others. I have gotten up to 45 highway mpg out of my 2009 Ford Focus and I typically get about 34 on average. That translates into a difference of about 154 miles per tank., 630 max and 476 average. The Car & Driver blog sucked, anyone with a reasonable education in cars knew it and probably laughed out loud the way I did.

Roger Simoneau

11:48am | Feb 8, 2010

A couple interesting items:

First, any other "reporter" with a specific axe to grind should make note of the computer details stored. They really should be honest when they decide to speed then claim they were obeying the speed limit. It's so very easy to show their dishonesty when the vehicle computer stores so much information.

Second, it's very telling when someone has to - in my very humble opinion - significantly abuse the situation in order to try and make the Tesla Roadster look as poorly as possible. It speaks of the truly high quality the vehicle was produced under and for.

Triple kudos for Tesla Motors!

Alan

12:23pm | Feb 8, 2010

Here's what I told them in the comments section to their rebuttal.

Where to start? Well, after two months and 2500 miles in a Tesla Roadster Sport in the Colorado mountains, I can make some statements.
It’s small. So is a Lotus (smaller). It has the same leg room and head room as my BMW m-coupe.
We drive it between 55 and 110 miles every day. It is comfortable, wonderfully quick, and charges in a couple of hours.
Would I make a long road trip in it? Nope. But I wouldn’t make one in my m-coupe either. Better a larger car that stops at gas stations for that. But, 180 miles? Yes.
Would I immensely enjoy the hills and twisties in Colorado? You bet.
So, as with most vehicles, satisfaction depends on how you use them. You want to tow a trailer? Get a truck. You want to go off road? Get an SUV.
You want to have a great drive in a new technology car? Get a Tesla. It is not the answer to everything, but it does what it says it does … every day.

TheParachutist

10:59am | Feb 9, 2010

"I think it’s kind of crazy to treat the Tesla Roadster like a Honda Civic. "

Why? The Civic is a highly reliable vehicle that will take me where I want to go without me planning to put the right gas in it the night before. Clearly, with a Tesla I will have to plan ahead.

By the way, for many people Saginaw to Ann Arbor is a daily commute.

Timo

1:59pm | Feb 9, 2010

TheParachutist;

If you drive Saginaw to Ann Arbor then:

1) use range mode and fill your battery pack.
2) obey speed limits, do not "average to 70 to 80 mph".
3) use mobile charger when you are at your destination.

No "planning ahead", just common sense. You don't try to drive you Civic either with near-empty gas-tank without filling it first when you start a longish road trip, be it daily commute or not.

AND: even without doing 1) or 3) you would have managed to do that road trip if you had obeyed 2) and switched to range mode when you are driving longer road trip. That blog lied, plain and simple. There are more than enough evidence from Roadster users that Roadster can manage that kind of distance without trouble if you drive with some brains.

Anyway Roadster is not meant for be long-range road trips. Not this generation Roadster or any other this generation EV anyway. There are not yet charger infrastructure anywhere for longer unplanned trips, and current generation batteries are not yet good enough for decent long road trip. We are getting there, but it still takes few years before ICE is completely obsolete. Those new batteries that Tesla gets would have given Roadster way over 300 mile range, nearly 400 EPA miles actually. With optimal driving you probably could get over 450 miles out of them. And those are not yet those much-talked carbon nanotube/porous material batteries with enormous capacities (and excellent cycling endurance).

Mark

2:42pm | Feb 9, 2010

Did anyone notice that the articles appear to have changed or at least I couldn't find any of the disparaging remarks mentioned above anymore. Maybe the links have been changed to protect the "ignorant".

TheParachutist

7:04am | Feb 10, 2010

"That blog lied, plain and simple." .... That kind of wording can land you in court. Good luck with that!

The real issue is that despite taking milions of taxpayer dollars, the EV is not yet ready for prime-time. Pretending that it is does brave entrepreneurs like Mr Musk no favors at all.

Earl

8:51am | Feb 10, 2010

TheParachutist,
The Roadster would be great for a Saginaw to Ann Arbor commute. I'll have to disagree with Timo. It can easily be done at 70 - 80 mph. It would be better to have a charging facility at both ends to you can be easier on your battery than doing a full cycle every day but it is certainly not much of a challenge.

Timo

12:56pm | Feb 10, 2010

TheParachutist; I live in free country where we have speech rights. If you live in some third world taliban controlled country it is your problem. Saying that that blog lied when it lied can't get me into court. Not here. Not in USA either, I believe. And if they sue me I just ask Tesla to back me up. Then that would be public embarrassment for C/D.

As Earl says that road trip is no challenge for Roadster. But I doubt that it could be done 70-80mph, JB Straubels blog says that that would give you about 180-150 mile range, which is too short, if average is between those. But even that is more than 140 that C/D blogger got. To get only that little with fully charged Roadster you would need to drive aggressively 80-85mph average. That's _average_.

That blogger lied at something to get roadster battery empty at 40 miles left in 180 mile road trip. If he had "fully charged Roadster Sport" as he said and if "the needle did not pass 50 kW during my trip; 99 percent of the time, I kept it below the 25-kW mark" then he would have been going about 75mph. At 60mph roadster uses about 15kW. "I kept it right around 60 mph most of the time", yeah, right, the logs revealed that "energy usage ranged between 300 and 400" that means speed 75-85 mph speed. "One feature the Tesla would benefit from is cruise control," that is a standard feature in Roadsters.

Make your own conclusions.

Timo

3:22pm | Feb 10, 2010

A couple of posts earlier I mentioned "carbon nanotube/porous" for battery material. That obviously should have been silicon nanowire/porous. Anybody that have followed battery development would have already noticed that mistake (I was reading about current tech of space elevator and what kind of practical results they have now. Carbon nanostructures are used for that, and that stick into my mind).

However, there is now announced first generation battery _with_ that silicon as negative electrode is coming to production in 2013, just in time for Type S and next generation Roadster.

Also they mention cycle durability "which prevents deformation of the alloy-based negative electrode when subjected to repeated charge and discharge".

That's enough for me. It gives me about 40 mile margin for my required range need, maybe more (my average speed would be less than 60mph in my trip). Hopefully it wont cost too much, and cycle durability is in reality also good, and not only mention in paper.

Enrique

11:36pm | Feb 11, 2010

Hello Parachutist
I read the article you linked and I understand VW is not ready (or not interested) to produce Electric Vehicles, and they will have to rely on ICE's for the next 10 or 20 years... if that good for them I don't mind.
I know I only represent 0.000000000001% of the market (or maybe less).
But I WANT an electric vehicle, I can't buy a Tesla Roadster... now... but in 2 or 3 years? or maybe a Model S, a Mini E, a Renault ZEV... inclusive I can buy a used VW only to take out the engine and switch it to electric (VW-e :) )

Regards

Andrew

5:13pm | Feb 15, 2010

Nice work guys. Highlight the bad reviews and ignore all of the good ones.

The only taxpayer dollars involved are the so-far-un-issued loan for the Model S and battery pack plants. For the Roadster, no taxpayer dollars, other than an exemption from some taxes, which involves zero outlay. As for Elon Musk, I gather that to this point he has about $50 million on the table, pending profit and payback in the future assuming that Model S and subsequent mass market cars do well. Sounds pretty entrepreneurial to me. You, on the other hand, talk like a pure-blooded public parasite.

AJA

4:51pm | Feb 16, 2010

Parachutist,

You should consider the source of the information you use as evidence. VW is heavily invested in clean deisel technology. Their take on electric vehicles is no suprise.

If you ask a dog lover what kind of cat to get, they are going to tell you to get a dog.

I don't think you would get the same response from a company like Nissan who is clearly moving forward with their electric car program.

george

7:27pm | Feb 16, 2010

TheParachutist here is some of what Wards auto said. -

he says auto makers have to depend on ICEs until alternative-power systems are fully developed.

“We believe there will be a diverse (range) of propulsion technologies in the future,” Jacoby tells attendees, noting he’s especially high on the clean diesel option—as are most European auto executives.
The VWA chief cites the low price of fuel in the U.S. as the major barrier to the introduction of electrified vehicles here. “Electric vehicles and hybrids are not competitive (at this time).”
Jacoby also predicts there won't be a charging infrastructure, which is vital to EV use, created in the next five to 10 years.
“I want to be a little more realistic about EVs,” he says. “It's going to take more time (for growth). Only 10% of our (U.S.) fleet will be electrified by 2020.”
Moving the industry to produce more EVs cannot be done by government edict, alone. “We make cars for consumers, not government regulators,” Jacoby says.

Only 10% of U.S. fleet to be electrified by 2020, predicts Stefan Jacoby, president of Volkswagen America.
It will take billions of dollars of investment to scale up to the mass production of electrified vehicles, he says, noting it’s doubtful that can happen in a couple of decades.
Jacoby predicts the U.S. will proceed with electrification at the same speed as other countries, including China.
Meantime, the VWA chief urges the adoption of long-term global emissions standards. State emissions standards in the U.S. make it tough on the auto industry, emphasizing national standards are needed here.
Jacoby's cautious predictions for EV growth are echoed by his colleague, Johan de Nysschen, president of Audi of America Inc., who tells Ward’s he agrees EV penetration will be slow in coming years."

Coming years? What?
This sounds sensible but it is all just resistance to change. All hot fumes.
Every one of these "experts" are rebels against the truth that oil is running out and will not last forever. Everyone of these "experts are just plain stupid" and every law that would help them is just plain stupid because oil is running out.
Hey, Diesel is made from oil that is running out. Hello.

[shortened by admin]

Roger

2:31am | Feb 17, 2010

You guys are being a bit thin skinned. I did not see any kind of bias in the Car and Driver piece. The guy didn't take all the steps an expert would have taken and it got him in trouble. This is the kind of real-life experience you will expect to see more and more as users of electric cars expand beyond the base of true-believers. I think dashing off this blog harms your case more than helps it, both by drawing attention to a small part of Car and Driver reporting, and irking them in the process.

jay

3:36pm | Feb 17, 2010

Roger,

Come on. . . The guy can't find the cruise control? I laughed out loud at that claim!

Timo

9:40pm | Feb 17, 2010

Roger; that C&D blog lied. That trip is no challenge to Roadster if it has been fully charged to start and if driver drives 60mph average as that blog claims. At 60mph your range is approx 210-220 miles, not 140. You need to drive about 80-85mph _average_ to get that small range. Tesla team even checked the facts from the car computer, and noticed those lies.

Is it surprising to you that they get angry response from lies here? Here you see Roadster owners that can immediately say that those claims are false and utter BS.

After learning of your recent tradgedy at Tesla, I would like to express
my deepest condolences to the families of your staff who you have recently
lost, and to the all of you at Tesla during your time of grieving.